Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30120159›Full record

ReviewThe oncologist2018

Adjuvant Anthracyclines in Breast Cancer: What Is Their Role?

Ami N Shah, William J Gradishar

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The oncologist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Evaluating the role of montelukast on doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity in breast cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Cardiotoxicity in breast cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Network Pharmacology andCurrent pharmaceutical design · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ami N ShahLynn Sage Breast Cancer Program, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1347-3782
William J GradisharLynn Sage Breast Cancer Program, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA w-gradishar@northwestern.edu.
Northwestern University · USRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anthracyclines have been a mainstay of breast cancer therapy for decades, with strong evidence demonstrating their impact on breast cancer survival. However, concerns regarding rare but serious long-term toxicities including cardiotoxicity and hematologic malignancies have driven interest in alternative adjuvant therapy options with more favorable toxicity profiles. This article provides an update of data that help inform clinicians of the role anthracyclines should play in adjuvant breast cancer therapy. Two recently reported large randomized trials-the Anthracycline in Early Breast Cancer and Western German Study Plan B studies-compared a taxane and cyclophosphamide regimen with an anthracycline, taxane, and cyclophosphamide regimen. Although the studies had conflicting results, together these studies suggest that the benefit of adjuvant anthracycline therapy over a nonanthracycline taxane-containing regimen is modest at best and may be primarily seen in patients with especially high-risk disease (i.e., triple-negative breast cancer, involvement of multiple lymph nodes). A third study-the MINDACT study-compared an anthracycline-based regimen to a nonanthracycline regimen, with similar outcomes in both groups. Despite the toxicities, no adjuvant breast cancer regimen has been shown to be superior to an anthracycline-taxane regimen in high-risk patients. These data can directly inform clinical decision-making in determining which patients warrant use of adjuvant anthracycline therapy. Future research may focus on confirming subgroups for whom it is reasonable to forgo adjuvant anthracyclines and validating predictive biomarkers or scores for anthracycline benefit. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In patients with early breast cancer, the choice of adjuvant chemotherapy should be based on its effectiveness in reducing breast cancer recurrences and its short- and long-term toxicities. Although adjuvant anthracycline and taxane chemotherapy has the most data supporting its effectiveness, anthracyclines carry a small but important increased risk for cardiotoxicity and leukemia. Two recent clinical trials help describe the degree of benefit with adjuvant anthracycline therapy compared with taxane therapy alone. They suggest that in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and limited lymph node involvement, nonanthracycline taxane-based adjuvant therapy may be adequate.

Indexed as

AnthracyclinesBreast NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleHumansAnthracyclinesAdjuvant chemotherapyAnthracyclineBreast cancer

Identifiers

PMID30120159
PMCPMC6263120
OpenAlexW2885817833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.